Cancer miasm [was: Miasms and Homicide

[Shannon Nelson]

I would love to hear more thoughts about the "cancer miasm" (as it is
called)--should it have a different name, or is it not truly a miasm? (It
does seem to be inheritable and progressive, doesn't it?)
Shannon

on 12/2/04 4:32 AM, David Little at little@simillimum.com wrote:

[J Lucas]

I would say that the key word here is 'diathesis' which should be applied to
the cancer state (miasm for those who want to call it that) and possibly
this word is more useful to appreciate for Sankaran's categorical work on
miasms.

Best, Joy

http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com

[Shannon Nelson]

I have read the answer to this, but it doesn't seem to stick...
What differentiates a diathesis from a miasm?
Shannon

on 12/2/04 10:07 AM, J Lucas at j.lucas@ntlworld.com wrote:

[J Lucas]

Because as David says, the cancer state is many things. Thought to be born
out of a fusion of more than one miasm it, like any other diseased state,
becomes the offspring rather than the actual miasmatic parent. So it becomes
a tendency (diathesis) rather than an actual original cause. That is how I
see it anyway, even though I tend to use the word miasm when I refer to the
cancer diathesis.

Best wishes, Joy

http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com

[doctorleelah2h]

Rajan Sankaran's observations and derivations about various
expressions of the different "miasms" are BRILLIANT.

I do wish though, that he had used a different word to express his
concepts - and i agree "States" is a better word for them.
I think he has a long time to go in futhur developing this idea. What
is still incomplete is understanding of the clinical management of
cases in these "states" for the long term, especially those with
complex pathology. IT may be confusing to homeoapths who do not make
a study of the Chronic Diseases and Miasms before studying his ideas.

If we give him another 10 years or so - he'll have refined this whole
concept to a clear clincal level. We need to remember that he is the
son of P. Sankaran - one of the best and most respected homeopaths in
India. Rajan's clinical observations of homeopathic cure started from
childhood, assisting his father. Also, he has had similar education
to what I have had, from the same homeopathic college.

I worked as house physician in our homeopathic hospital where he was
(and still is) one of the consultant homeopaths I had to work for. He
always cautioned us to realise that his ideas are developing and one
needs to be careful about how one uses them.
Always, a grounding in the basic principles in the Organon (including
miasms) and study of the Materia MEdica is necessary before
absorbing the contribution of "modern" homeopaths.
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, J Lucas wrote:
applied to
possibly
work on
it is
miasm? (It
not a
many
miasm,
deep grief, a

[Piet Guijt]

Dr.Leelah wrote:

expressions of the different "miasms" are BRILLIANT.

concepts - and i agree "States" is a better word for them.

Hello Dr.Leelah,

Why is state a better word?
Not every state is miasmatic, so this would be very confusing.
Is a miasm just a microorganism? I don't thinks so.
So when we talk on miasms we always talk of miasmatic states. It is the
result on the patient and the initiating miasmatic influence. This is always
a state, without patients there are no miasms, only microorganism.
Sankaran makes a classifications of remdies in a similar way Hahnemann did,
he makes search through the repertory to create more refinend Genus groups
of remedies. Hahnemann classified Pseudo-psora, next to the three basic/
fundamental miasms, Sankaran is doing things a long the same lines.

Kind regards, Piet

[Shannon Nelson]

Thanks, Chris!
So the level that Eyzayaga calls "constitution" would be the same as
"diathesis"? Could you name some of the diatheses more commonly referrred
to? (Is this covered in David's on-line works? Which I am working thru way
too slowly...!)

Shannon
on 12/2/04 11:28 PM, Chris Gillen at chrisgillen@optusnet.com.au wrote:

[doctorleelah2h]

Dear Piet,
There is something that HAhnemann established with the Chronic
Diseases based ont the status of disease/treatment 200 years ago, and
thre is an extrapolation and personal interpretation that Sankaran
has derived based on more abstract concepts.

This is a marked difference. While I don't discard Sanakrans'
observations, there has to be a clear line of understanding to
distinguish the differences between them, otherwise you and anyone
else with this confusion in perception will never understand how the
idea of MAismas is used in chronic case management with (phase)
similimums.

the idea is that we have to "cure" our patients and we will not be
able to really understand cure in depth, if we continue with an
abstract idea of miasm's and single constitutionals. I'm not saying
these dont' have a place in helping us find a good remedy. I'm
talking about progressive case management over years.

One can wait 8 years hopping from remedy to remedy trying to "cure" a
patient with the single elusive constitutional - or one can contiune
to cure that patient in less than 4 years using indicated phase
remedies that agree with the miasmatic expression and the predominant
disease totality, even if the constitutional has not been found. A
lot of what I'm saying has many grey areas, but I'm trying to put it
into words.

So to answer your question directly:
"Why is state a better word?

Unless you have really understood what Hahnemann expressed as chronic
disease management with miasms, in this Chronic Diseases, you will
continue to remain confused and ask a question as you did above.
Which is why I said in the beginning, it is only responsible that
those who bring forth even brilliant extrapolations and ideas, retain
the sanctity (for want of a better word) of the terms and processes
that Hahnemann established, if only to remove confusion in the minds
of those who may not wish to use it, because that too has curative
potential and is useful today.

I think this will be a step forward in bringing more unity and
understanding in the "thinking" homeopathic community.
regards,
D.r Leela
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Piet Guijt wrote:
the
is always
Hahnemann did,
groups
basic/
What
make
ideas.
whole
the
homeopaths in
from
education
was
for. He
one
(including
be
categorical
(as
is
of
of a

[Piet Guijt]

Dr.Leelah wrote;

So to answer your question directly:
"Why is state a better word?
Hi Dr. Leelah,

First: Try to remember the basic discussion rules.

Back to my question:
So a miasmatic prescription according to the CD is not on the state?

In Organon § 213 Hahnemann states:

We shall, therefore, never be able to cure conformably to nature - that is
to say, homœopathically - if we do not, in every case of disease, even in
such as are acute, observe, along with the other symptoms, those relating to
the changes in the state of the mind and disposition, and if we do not
select, for the patient’s relief, from among the medicines a disease-force
which, in addition to the similarity of its other symptoms to those of the
disease, is also capable of producing a similar state of the disposition and
mind.

"In every case of disease", so what's the use to call Sankaran's miasms
'states'? I said your proposed name would give rise to more confusion.

This was my question, which has nothing to do wheather I understand what
Hahnemann expressed as chronic
disease management with miasms, in this Chronic Diseases.

Regards, Piet

[doctorleelah2h]

Hi PIet,

**Certainly, Could you remind me what they are?

"In every case of disease", so what's the use to call Sankaran's
miasms 'states'? I said your proposed name would give rise to more
confusion.
This was my question, which has nothing to do wheather I understand
what Hahnemann expressed as chronic disease management with miasms,
in this Chronic Diseases.

**The miasmatic state, especially when miltimiasmatic in expression
is not necesarily the same expressed "state" that one will observe at
a particlular point of time of disease totality pointing to a
similimum. This allows for 2-3 similimums to be prescribed in series
depending on what is the predominant state which may or may not
correspond to the miasmatic expression. the clinical importance is to
observe the deeper state which is more closely matched with the
miasmatic expression express itself clearly and point to the chonic
remedy that would qualify as "constitutional".
In other situations, there may be a need for an intercurrect
antimiasmatic specific remedy to move things forward along with the
chronic remedy.

This is with due respect to what you know and what you understand and
what you have learnt.

IF what I say helps you get a clearer idea of the difference I
perceive in using the term "Miasm" vis a vis "State", I'm glad.
My only interest is that homeopaths are able to evaluate cure in
their cases on a chronic remedy, with a deeper understanding of what
the remedy is doing in the long term.
Simple shifts in "state" due to a remedy and a patient saying
they "feel better" in some symptoms or even in the chief complaint,
is not an adequate indication for lasting cure.
This is akin to symptomatic treatment of allopathy and we need to be
careful about this and this is graver "confusion".

regards,
dr. leela
and
the
saying
to "cure" a
contiune
predominant
it
chronic
retain
processes
minds
his
It is
This
microorganism.
Genus
three
lines.
Homicide
express his
idea.
management of
with
not
this
is
started
he
and
should
and
miasm"
truly a
general
outcome
suppression
radiation,
no
email
message